I was a little bit confused. How many bilbos were there, thirteen? Fourteen? I didn't like the skinny goblin, I think his name was Roland? He was scary and they were trying to make us feel bad for him but HELLO he is a bad guy! He wanted to eat the main bilbo! The grand elf was pretty cool but he didn't really look like an elf, more like a wizard? I really liked Ragglefarts, he was so funny when he crossed his eyes but it would have been funnier if like an elk had kicked him in the balls. I don't understand why the trolls talked like that. They should have been like "LOL teh bilbos get in my belly!" That is how real trolls talk. They should have done more research before writing this movie.

I read The Hobbit when I was in middle school and don't remember it well, so I was just like, "Wheee." It was better than I thought it would be, hearing all the bad reviews. Also, dwarves can be hot. WHO WOULDA THOUGHT.

All the extra junk they threw in, all the unnecessary nods to the Lard of the Rings, all the digressions, all the battles... Making this story into three movies is a big mistake, I think. And I know that part of the fun of Tolkien is the epic drama of it all, but at times they went so overboard it was just silly.

• Goblin Town was great. And Tumor Face was awesome, too.• Lots of the effects, of course, were brilliant.• Breathtaking locations.• The trolls!• Martin Freeman was excellent in every way.• Gollum was even better than in LOTR. So well done.• Just great to be back in Middle Earth for more fun. I've seen the extended versions of the LOTR movies so many times.

• The endless crud with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Oh, I get it! These are the same people from those other movies. Ugh.• The Radagast stuff was laughably stupid. Pulled through the forest on a rabbit sled? And his face is covered in, what, birdshit? "Eating too many mushrooms," indeed. And Radagast was always my favorite from the book, even though he's in it for only a few paragraphs. Or whatever.• I hated the high-frame rate business. It made things look fake and flat and cheap. It took me about 45 minutes to get past it and just enjoy. • All the flab they should have cut. Like the stone giants? Who cares! You can't say they were just being true to the book, because they changed so much other stuff.• The silly way they brought Galadriel and Saruman into the story. We don't need to talk about Sauron, you guys! (And the serious look Gandalf gives Bilbo when he's about to show off his secret ring after the escape from Goblin Town. Enough with that stuff.)• I don't like spiders. (And in the book, was there any great significance to them, or were they just there. Cause, like, this is Mirkwood, and it's creepy?)• I thought it was superconfusing who they were fighting lots of times, and why. It was just one damn thing after another, with little regard for what we high-falutin literary types call profluence. Remember? There's supposed to be a story happening?• Having sexy dwarves is dumb.

All the extra junk they threw in, all the unnecessary nods to the Lard of the Rings, all the digressions, all the battles... Making this story into three movies is a big mistake, I think. And I know that part of the fun of Tolkien is the epic drama of it all, but at times they went so overboard it was just silly.

• Goblin Town was great. And Tumor Face was awesome, too.• Lots of the effects, of course, were brilliant.• Breathtaking locations.• The trolls!• Martin Freeman was excellent in every way.• Gollum was even better than in LOTR. So well done.• Just great to be back in Middle Earth for more fun. I've seen the extended versions of the LOTR movies so many times.

• The endless crud with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Oh, I get it! These are the same people from those other movies. Ugh.• The Radagast stuff was laughably stupid. Pulled through the forest on a rabbit sled? And his face is covered in, what, birdshit? "Eating too many mushrooms," indeed. And Radagast was always my favorite from the book, even though he's in it for only a few paragraphs. Or whatever.• I hated the high-frame rate business. It made things look fake and flat and cheap. It took me about 45 minutes to get past it and just enjoy. • All the flab they should have cut. Like the stone giants? Who cares! You can't say they were just being true to the book, because they changed so much other stuff.• The silly way they brought Galadriel and Saruman into the story. We don't need to talk about Sauron, you guys! (And the serious look Gandalf gives Bilbo when he's about to show off his secret ring after the escape from Goblin Town. Enough with that stuff.)• I don't like spiders. (And in the book, was there any great significance to them, or were they just there. Cause, like, this is Mirkwood, and it's creepy?)• I thought it was superconfusing who they were fighting lots of times, and why. It was just one damn thing after another, with little regard for what we high-falutin literary types call profluence. Remember? There's supposed to be a story happening?• Having sexy dwarves is dumb.

All the extra junk they threw in, all the unnecessary nods to the Lard of the Rings, all the digressions, all the battles... Making this story into three movies is a big mistake, I think. And I know that part of the fun of Tolkien is the epic drama of it all, but at times they went so overboard it was just silly.

• Goblin Town was great. And Tumor Face was awesome, too.• Lots of the effects, of course, were brilliant.• Breathtaking locations.• The trolls!• Martin Freeman was excellent in every way.• Gollum was even better than in LOTR. So well done.• Just great to be back in Middle Earth for more fun. I've seen the extended versions of the LOTR movies so many times.

• The endless crud with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Oh, I get it! These are the same people from those other movies. Ugh.• The Radagast stuff was laughably stupid. Pulled through the forest on a rabbit sled? And his face is covered in, what, birdshit? "Eating too many mushrooms," indeed. And Radagast was always my favorite from the book, even though he's in it for only a few paragraphs. Or whatever.• I hated the high-frame rate business. It made things look fake and flat and cheap. It took me about 45 minutes to get past it and just enjoy. • All the flab they should have cut. Like the stone giants? Who cares! You can't say they were just being true to the book, because they changed so much other stuff.• The silly way they brought Galadriel and Saruman into the story. We don't need to talk about Sauron, you guys! (And the serious look Gandalf gives Bilbo when he's about to show off his secret ring after the escape from Goblin Town. Enough with that stuff.)• I don't like spiders. (And in the book, was there any great significance to them, or were they just there. Cause, like, this is Mirkwood, and it's creepy?)• I thought it was superconfusing who they were fighting lots of times, and why. It was just one damn thing after another, with little regard for what we high-falutin literary types call profluence. Remember? There's supposed to be a story happening?• Having sexy dwarves is dumb.

Ha, good points! Except I loved Radagast. He intrigued me in the book and I liked his bunny sled. The bird shiitake on his face was a bit excessive.

The Gollum/Bilbo scene was wonderful.

I agree about Galadriel and Saruman. Super pointless. Especially Galadriel, because they spent so much goddamn time on her.

I feel like they think the Hobbit isn't battle-y enough, but they want to stretch it out to three films for some godforsaken reason, so everything is a battle all the time.

I really agree with Desdemona and takecare -- the book was integral to my childhood, and it's so damn charming, and so much about Bilbo's inner life -- and all of that is lost in the movie. I did enjoy the movie (although all the annoying things that have been mentioned already annoyed me as well), but it didn't really feel like THE HOBBIT. Much more like The Dwarves.

The one scene I really did love, though, is the one with Bilbo and Gollum. Gollum/Smeagol is such a lonely and pitiable creature -- I was almost crying. The scene was very well done -- Gollum/Smeagol's desperation is tangible and heartbreaking.

I thought it was lichen growing on Radagast's face, not birdshit. But I may be wrong.

Whatever it was, it was distracting as heck. I would have enjoyed Radagast's screen time much more if he had just wiped off his face.

He had a nest of baby birds under his hat, so my brain told me it was bird crepe, no matter what the creators really meant for it to be. I kept thinking that this character was Peter Jackson's Jar Jar Binks.

when my parents were here around christmas, we saw a commercial for this movie, and i mentioned some of the things i had heard people say about it and how i thought it was silly to drag it out into three movies, and my dad almost did a spit-take. he couldn't believe they'd made it into a trilogy. two days later we were in manhattan and we saw a poster for it, and he was like, "so, three movies? really?" and i was like, <3.

_________________"rise from the ashes of douchebaggery like a fancy vegan phoenix" - amandabear"I'm pretty sure the moral of this story is: fork pants." - cq

I enjoyed it, thought Martin Freeman was spot on as Bilbo. But yeah, three movies? I forgot all of the family connections with the dwarves, who was who (like Gimli's dad is Gloin, totally forgot that one).

It does make me want to read it again, I kept thinking, was that in the book? I don't remember it well, though it wasn't as far back as high school that I read it. I first read it after I saw the first Lard of the Rings movies 10 years ago, way way way after high school.

Where this one was all dwarves, fighting and orcs, the next one will probably be all elves, since they had to add several new ones and bring in ones that weren't even in the Hobbit if I recall-coughLegolascough.

Would you review the sun breaking over a mountain pass? Would you rate the manner in which the new dawn’s light flits across the contour of lover’s thigh? How many thumbs up does grace get? How many stars for the infinite? When God’s expansive bounty enfolds you, when you find yourself swaddled in that which is the very grandeur of the universe itself, dare you utter, “Well it didn’t need to be three hours”?

Saw it last night, and I enjoyed the second more than the first. I liked the added laughs, and although there were things that are not in the book, it seemed to flow rather well (also, I don't remember the book in detail, so I simply enjoyed the movie).However I realized that the actor who plays Thorin looks exactly like a guy I know. All the time I was like "Diego, what are you doing in the movie?"

_________________I dunno, I guess I just get enthused over eating big ol' squishy balls. - Interrobang?!

I actually liked the movie, on a whole. Lee Pace makes a creepy Thranduil.

But I just. don't. get. why on Earth Evangeline Lilly's character was in this movie. It could've been a good movie without her weird side plot.

And at this exchange, I shouted "What the fork?" in the theatre (late night showing, pretty empty, I got shushed and applauded):

Thranduil says SOMETHING about how Tauriel isn't good enough for his son.Tauriel the fake elf's response: something, something... I am but a Silvan elf.

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? Legolas is a Silvan Elf born of Sindarin heritage...almost all of the Elves in Mirkwood and Lorien are Silvan Elves. I mean, Silvan Elf is synonymous with wood-elf!It makes absolutely no sense. No sense at all. If you're going to incorporate more lore and mythos, Jackson, at least do it correctly.

I saw it today and was so distracted by how weird the high frame rate thing looks that I could barely pay attention to the movie. my dumb theater only has 2 inconvenient movie times for the 2D regular showing. Anyway, that is my review. high frame rate makes everything look like a BBC mini series from the 80s.

PS. Missdelaney, i wish you lived in New York and were on my trivia team.

_________________I am not a troll. I am TELLING YOU THE ******GOD'S TRUTH****** AND YOU JUST DON'T WANT THE HEAR IT DO YOU?

I saw it today and was so distracted by how weird the high frame rate thing looks that I could barely pay attention to the movie. my dumb theater only has 2 inconvenient movie times for the 2D regular showing. Anyway, that is my review. high frame rate makes everything look like a BBC mini series from the 80s.

PS. Missdelaney, i wish you lived in New York and were on my trivia team.

That is so true! It looks super strange. With the CGI and things, I like it because it made the first movie (and parts of this one) really look like a kid's movie, and, since it was a kid's book, I was cool with it. But for the rest of it...wonky.

The high frame rate makes me dizzy, especially when they get really close up on scenery and then whirl around.

I thought it was just meh. I wouldn't have known Tauriel wasn't in the book if I hadn't seen an interview or read something, but she did feel a bit wedged in, like they hadn't met their badass woman quota. She seemed really pointless and only served to highlight the fact that it was a total sausage fest*. But the time went by really quickly - it didn't feel like I sat there for 3 hours - so that was a good thing.

*I realise nearly every character in the book is male.

_________________A pie eating contest is a battle with no losers. - amandabear

But then I am not a huge movie fan in general. In the three Lard of the Rings films were at least some scenes and images of tranquil beauty which in my eyes redeemed them (even if even there MY cut of the three extended films would be about 1,5 hours total running time due to cutting out all weird inventions, gross action, bad dialogue etc etc etc etc ).

So I have seen the Hobbit films only once each. (And I won't tell you how many times I watched some of the LoTR films in the cinema! LOL!)